Cover not available

Article published In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 22:2 (2017) ► pp.212–241

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Using word n-grams to identify authors and idiolects

A corpus approach to a forensic linguistic problem

 | Nottingham Trent University
Published online: 16 October 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.2.03wri
Abstract
Forensic authorship attribution is concerned with identifying the writers of anonymous criminal documents. Over the last twenty years, computer scientists have developed a wide range of statistical procedures using a number of different linguistic features to measure similarity between texts. However, much of this work is not of practical use to forensic linguists who need to explain in reports or in court why a particular method of identifying potential authors works. This paper sets out to address this problem using a corpus linguistic approach and the 176-author 2.5 million-word Enron Email Corpus. Drawing on literature positing the idiolectal nature of collocations, phrases and word sequences, this paper tests the accuracy of word n-grams in identifying the authors of anonymised email samples. Moving beyond the statistical analysis, the usage-based concept of entrenchment is offered as a means by which to account for the recurring and distinctive production of idiolectal word n-grams.
Article outline
  • 1.The linguistic individual, corpora and forensic linguistics
  • 2.Word strings as features in authorship analysis
    • 2.1Word strings, routine and the individual
    • 2.2Empirical evidence for idiolectal word strings
    • 2.3‘Word n-grams’ in this study
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1The Enron Email Corpus
    • 3.2The authorship attribution experiment
  • 4.Attribution results
    • 4.1Effect of sample size
    • 4.2Performance of different n-gram lengths
    • 4.3Performance across authors
  • 5.Identifying idiolectal word n-grams
  • 6.Conclusions and implications
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (51)
References
Argamon, S., & Koppel, M. (2013). A systemic functional approach to automated authorship analysis. Journal of Law and Policy, 21(2), 299–316.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barlow, M. (2013). Individual differences and usage-based grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(4), 443–478. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Becker, J. D. (1975). The phrasal lexicon. In B. L. Nash-Webber & R. Shank (Eds.), Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing (pp. 60–63). Cambridge, MA: Bolt Beranek and Newman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloch, B. (1948). A set of postulates for phonemic analysis. Language, 24(1), 3–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, W. W. (2009). Enron Email Dataset [online]. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed November 2010).
Coniam, D. (2004). Concordancing oneself: Constructing individual textual profiles. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(2), 271–298. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cotterill, J. (2010). How to use corpus linguistics in forensic linguistics. In A. O’Keefe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (pp. 578–590). London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. (1994). On the use of corpora in the analysis of forensic texts. Forensic Linguistics. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 1(1), 27–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Author identification, idiolect, and linguistic uniqueness. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 431–447. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulthard, M., Grant, T., & Kredens, K. (2011). Forensic Linguistics. In R. Wodak, B. Johnstone & P. Kerswill (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 531–544). London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coyotl-Morales, R., Villaseñor-Pineda, M. L., Montes-y-Gómez, M., & Rosso, P. (2006). Authorship attribution using word sequences. In J. F. Martínez-Trinidad, J. A. Carrasco Ochoa & J. Kittler (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Iberoamerican Congress on Pattern Recognition (pp. 844–853). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Durrant, P., & Doherty, A. (2010). Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6(2), 125–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1998). Communities of practice: Where language, gender and power all live? In J. Coates (Ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader (pp. 484–494). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eder, M. (2015). Does size matter? Authorship attribution, small samples, big problem. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 30(2), 167–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. In F. R. Palmer (Ed.), Selected papers of J.R. Firth 1952–1959 (pp. 168–205). London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grant, T. (2007). Quantifying evidence in forensic authorship analysis. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 14(1), 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Approaching questions in forensic authorship analysis. In J. Gibbons & M. T. Turell (Eds.), Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics (pp. 215–229). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Txt 4n6: Idiolect free authorship analysis? In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics (pp. 508–522) London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Txt 4N6: Method, consistency and distinctiveness in the analysis of SMS text messages. Journal of Law and Policy, 21(2), 467–494.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grieve, J. (2007). Quantitative authorship attribution: An evaluation of techniques. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 22(3), 251–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoover, D. L. (2002). Frequent word sequences and statistical stylistics. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 17(2), 157–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, A. & Wright, D. (2014). Identifying idiolect in forensic authorship attribution: An n-gram textbite approach. Language and Law (Linguagem e Direito) 1(1), 37–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Juola, P. (2008). Authorship Attribution. Delft: NOW Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Stylometry and immigration: A case study. Journal of Law and Policy, 21(2), 287–298.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koppel, M., Schler, J., & Argamon, S. (2011). Authorship attribution in the wild. Language Resources and Evaluation, 45(1), 83–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kredens, K. (2002). Towards a corpus-based methodology of forensic authorship attribution: A comparative study of two idiolects. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), PALC’01: Practical Applications in Language Corpora (pp. 405–437). Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Mein.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuiper, K. (2004). Formulaic performance in conventionalised varieties of speech. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use (pp. 37–54). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 127–161). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larner, S. (2014). A preliminary investigation into the use of fixed formulaic sequences as a marker of authorship. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 21(1), 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Love, H. (2002). Attributing Authorship: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luyckx, K., & Daelemans, W. (2011). The effect of author set size and data size in authorship attribution. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 26(1), 35–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mikros, G. (2012). Authorship attribution and gender identification in Greek blogs. In I. Obradovic, E. Kelih & Reinhard Köhler (Eds.), Methods and Applications of Quantitative Linguistics (pp. 21–32). University of Belgrade: Academic Mind.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nini, A., & Grant, T. (2013). Bridging the gap between stylistic and cognitive approaches to authorship analysis using Systemic Functional Linguistics and multidimensional analysis. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 20(2), 173–202.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanderson, C., & Guenter, S. (2006). Short text authorship attribution via sequence kernels, Markov chains and author unmasking: An investigation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Engineering (pp. 482–491). Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H-J. (2016). A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (pp. 9–36). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., Grandage, S., & Adolphs, S. (2004). Are corpus-derived recurrent clusters psycholinguistically valid? In N. Schmitt (Ed.) Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use (pp. 12–151). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, M. (2008). WordSmith Tool (Version 5) [Computer software]. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stamatatos, E. (2009). A survey of modern authorship attribution methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(3), 538–556. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). On the robustness of authorship attribution based on character n-gram features. Journal of Law and Policy, 21(2), 421–440.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Svartvik, J. (1968). The Evans Statements: A case for Forensic Linguistics. Gotëborg: University of Gothenburg Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turell, M. T., & Gavaldà, N. (2013). Towards an index of idiolectal similitude (or distance) in forensic authorship analysis. Journal of Law and Policy, 21(2), 495–514.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woolls, D. (2013). CFL Jaccard n-gram Lexical Evaluator (Jangle) (Version 2) [Computer software]. CFL Software Limited. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed January 2017).
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wright, D. (2013). Stylistic variation within genre conventions in the Enron email corpus: Developing a text-sensitive methodology for authorship research. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 20(1): 45–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (38)

Cited by 38 other publications

Carreras-Riudavets, Francisco J. & Zenón J. Hernández-Figueroa
2025. Estilometría TIP: enhanced text analysis tool with customisable metrics for Spanish texts. Cogent Arts & Humanities 12:1 DOI logo
Hidalgo Tenorio, Encarnación, Miguel Ángel Benítez Castro, Irene González, Reyes Rodríguez, Pol Castells, Roberto Muelas Lobato, David Sánchez & Manuel Moyano
2025. El proceso de radicalización de la célula terrorista del 17-A, o cómo el extremismo puede dejar su huella en el lenguaje . Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 104 ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Hubert, József, Zsófia Kenesei & András Bauer
2025. Stylistic Signals in Professional and Amateur Language Used in C2C Markets. International Journal of Consumer Studies 49:6 DOI logo
Yan, Jianwei, Qidi Li & Haitao Liu
2025. Defining digital humanities and examining its relationship with linguistics through the lens of Digital Scholarship in the Humanities . Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 40:1 ► pp. 354 ff. DOI logo
Danu, Julija, Krzysztof Kredens & Tim Grant
2024. Idiolect. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, DOI logo
Heini, Annina & Krzysztof Kredens
2024. Remote data collection in sociolinguistics: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 27:6 ► pp. 747 ff. DOI logo
Gillings, Mathew, Gerlinde Mautner & Paul Baker
2023. Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies, DOI logo
Grieve, Jack
2023. Register variation explains stylometric authorship analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 19:1 ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Andrea Mojedano Batel, Neus Alberich Buera & Krzysztof Kredens
2023. Estabilidad idiolectal del español a través de cuatro géneros de comunicación. Revista de Llengua i Dret :79 ► pp. 285 ff. DOI logo
Busso, Lucia, Marton Petyko, Sarah Atkins & Tim Grant
2022. Operation Heron: latent topic changes in an abusive letter series. Corpora 17:2 ► pp. 225 ff. DOI logo
Fadlil, Abdul, Sunardi Sunardi & Rezki Ramdhani
2022. Similarity Identification Based on Word Trigrams Using Exact String Matching Algorithms. INTENSIF: Jurnal Ilmiah Penelitian dan Penerapan Teknologi Sistem Informasi 6:2 ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo
Grant, Tim
2022. The Idea of Progress in Forensic Authorship Analysis, DOI logo
Grant, Tim & Jack Grieve
2022. The Starbuck Case. In Methodologies and Challenges in Forensic Linguistic Casework, ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo
Klyushin, Dmitriy & Yulia Nykyporets
2022. Nonparametric Methods of Authorship Attribution in Ukrainian Literature. In ICTERI 2021 Workshops [Communications in Computer and Information Science, 1635], ► pp. 510 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Xueqin & Mingzhe Jin
2022. A corpus-based approach to explore the stylistic peculiarity of Koji Uno’s postwar works. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 37:1 ► pp. 168 ff. DOI logo
Marko, Karoline, Margit Reitbauer & Georg Pickl
2022. Same person, different platform. Register Studies 4:2 ► pp. 202 ff. DOI logo
Romanova, Tatiana & Anna Khomenko
2022. Automation of Forensic Authorship Attribution: Problems and Prospects. Legal Issues in the Digital Age 3:2 ► pp. 90 ff. DOI logo
Tomas, Frédéric, Olivier Dodier & Samuel Demarchi
2022. Computational Measures of Deceptive Language: Prospects and Issues. Frontiers in Communication 7 DOI logo
Изотова, Т., Е. Крюк, В. Кузнецов, А. Плотникова, Т. Бердникова, А. Заварыкина, Е. Крюк & Н. Михалева
2022. Методические рекомендации по проведению судебно-автороведческих экспертиз, DOI logo
Douglas, Fiona M.
2021. Breaking with Europe. In Political, Public and Media Discourses from Indyref to Brexit, ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Evans, Mel & Alan Hogarth
2021. Stylistic palimpsests: Computational stylistic perspectives on precursory authorship in Aphra Behn’s drama. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 36:1 ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo
MacLeod, Nicci & Tim Grant
2021. Assuming Identities Online: How Linguistics Is Helping the Policing of Online Grooming and the Distribution of Abusive Images. In Rethinking Cybercrime, ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Mazurek, Marcin & Mateusz Romaniuk
2021. Attribution of authorship in instant messaging software applications, based on similarity measures of the stylometric features’ vector. Computer Science and Mathematical Modelling 0:11-12/2020 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Nini, Andrea
2021. Corpus Analysis in Forensic Linguistics. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Nini, Andrea
2023. A Theory of Linguistic Individuality for Authorship Analysis, DOI logo
Raj, Sariga, B. Kannan & V. P. Jagathy Raj
2021. Significance of Network Properties of Function Words in Author Attribution. In Intelligent Data Engineering and Analytics [Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1177], ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Abrams, Zsuzsanna I.
2020. Intercultural Communication and Language Pedagogy, DOI logo
Deviterne-Lapeyre, Capitaine Marie
2020. Interpol review of questioned documents 2016–2019. Forensic Science International: Synergy 2 ► pp. 429 ff. DOI logo
Fonteyn, Lauren & Andrea Nini
2020. Individuality in syntactic variation: An investigation of the seventeenth-century gerund alternation. Cognitive Linguistics 31:2 ► pp. 279 ff. DOI logo
Grant, Tim & Nicci MacLeod
2020. Language and Online Identities, DOI logo
Miranker, Molly & Alberto Giordano
2020. Text mining and semantic triples: Spatial analyses of text in applied humanitarian forensic research. Digital Geography and Society 1 ► pp. 100005 ff. DOI logo
Sharon Belvisi, Nicole Mariah, Naveed Muhammad & Fernando Alonso-Fernandez
2020. 2020 8th International Workshop on Biometrics and Forensics (IWBF), ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Vetchinnikova, Svetlana & Turo Hiltunen
2020. ELF and Language Change at the Individual Level. In Language Change, ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Yang, Wu Youyou & Brian Uzzi
2020. Estimating the deep replicability of scientific findings using human and artificial intelligence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117:20 ► pp. 10762 ff. DOI logo
Zhao, Yunqi, Igor Borovikov, Fernando de Mesentier Silva, Ahmad Beirami, Jason Rupert, Caedmon Somers, Jesse Harder, John Kolen, Jervis Pinto, Reza Pourabolghasem, James Pestrak, Harold Chaput, Mohsen Sardari, Long Lin, Sundeep Narravula, Navid Aghdaie & Kazi Zaman
2020. Winning Is Not Everything: Enhancing Game Development With Intelligent Agents. IEEE Transactions on Games 12:2 ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo
Grieve, Jack, Isobelle Clarke, Emily Chiang, Hannah Gideon, Annina Heini, Andrea Nini & Emily Waibel
2019. Attributing the Bixby Letter using n-gram tracing. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 34:3 ► pp. 493 ff. DOI logo
Vetchinnikova, Svetlana
2019. Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner, DOI logo
Beom-mo Kang
2017. Morpheme N-grams and Lexical Frames. EONEOHAG null:79 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue